Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 30 NEXT
 

erttheking:

jehk:

getoffmycloud:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.

Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?

I think it's safe to say that the point of a game with the tagline "prepare to die" is to be hard. Just my two cents.

So, people can't enjoy the game for reasons other than it's difficulty?

OT:


I agree with jim, and have argued as such on these forums before. About all I have to say about that...

MB202:
See, this is why I WASN'T one of the guys who got up in arms about an easy mode in Mega Man 10. Mega Man is fucking hard, and I don't want to risk strangling myself in frustration when there's an easier option. I mean, there are many different levels a game can be played. Like some people try playing the original Zelda without using the sword. Who's to say we can't do something similar with modern games; having the option of both easier to play games for everyone and harder to play games for experts wanting to test their mettle.

Fucking casuals grabbing the sword! There shouldn't even BE a sword in Zelda, god damn casuals dumbed the game down!

More like god damn "hardcorez" gamers forgetting that they CAN do things like this. Another example, OH NOEZ LITTLEBIGPLANET ADDED INFINITE RESPAWN CHECKPOINTS, DUMBED DOWN DUMBED DOWN!!!! Hey idiots, you do know you can always quit back to the pod and restart the entire level from the start if you still WANT that challenge in your game, right? Nobody is forcing you to respawn infinitely, you're choosing to and then bitching about something YOU chose to do.

As much as I hated hearing about Nuzlocke runs in Pokemon for a while when it became popular, at least the Pokemon community was intelligent enough to find more challenge in their game since that's what they wanted. And that's supposed to be a "kiddie" game according to teh hardcorez. I guess the kiddies are smarter than you, hardcorez gamers! What are you going to do about it? ... Bitch some more? K.

This video honestly made me frustrated. Not because I'm against an easy mode in video games or I'm against casual players but because I am subscribed to a guy on Youtube named Epic Name Bro who already talked about this and he did it a lot better than you as far as the idea of an easy mode in Dark Souls. I'll paraphrase a little bit from him, the idea worried him because of a few problems it might cause for the overall game. First off would be the issue with multiplayer and balancing. Would someone who played the game on the new easy mode and someone who played on the harder difficulty get the same type of gear? If they did then it would be somewhat unfair to the player on the harder difficulty as they are higher skilled and completed a more impressive feat but at the same time the casual player paid the same amount of money so would they not be entitled to balanced multiplayer? From Software could always just take the multiplayer out but that would be a shame as the multiplayer in the souls series is really unique and pretty damn fun.
As for the super mario bit I was kind of confused, why are you comparing Dark Souls to Mario? One is a platformer and the other an ARPG. The people who play them are completely different and the reasons you play them are completely different. Last thing I guess is just trust the developers, if they decide to add in an easier difficulty then it's their decision and it shouldn't be that bad. It's if they don't implement the difficulty in a way that works that you should start to get pissed off.
Anyway that is my (sort of)rant, keep doing what you do Jim Sterling. You are usually pretty awesome.

poiumty:
Jim, I feel you're misunderstanding the issue in the case of Dark Souls.

Disclaimer: I am fully in favor of optional difficulty modes for any game that doesn't rely on challenge as a core game mechanic. Any game that allows you to quicksave, has checkpoints, doesn't use death as a learning experience, uses gameplay as a means to tell the story etcetc. would benefit from as many optional dificulty modes as possible.

THAT SAID. Dark Souls isn't any of those. The core function of Dark Souls is engagement: to activate your brain, to make you think of cunning ways to bypass situations, to see all the game has to offer and use it, to experiment and create your own setups for an optimal gameplay style. When engaged, the game is easy: you can summon someone to guide you all the way through the level including the boss. You can be effectively walked through by signs on the ground with a big enough community. You can take your time and get a few extra resources that will allow you to upgrade your items and make your life that much easier. It's only when you want to casually smack the puny monsters with your Giant Sword of Overcompensating without paying attention to what's going on that the game gets punishingly hard even if you're played the game a few times already and know all of its tricks. Engagement is the reason Dark Souls is a good game, and without it it would just be an average game with a crappy storyline and a broad array of useless combat mechanics. Because you're not paying attention to details, you're just using the same combat style you're used to, you're not adapting, you're not thinking. And you're not practicing.
An easy mode takes away the satisfaction of overcoming a difficult challenge and the core function that the game is designed around. Other games, like Devil May Cry 3, can have their selectable difficulty modes. I disagree in Dark Souls' case.

your implying that other people will care about whatyou think about how dark souls works

and this is why jim is right

no one gives a damn about you playing through the game the way you played, NO ONE
and no one will give a damn when there is an easy mode

no one cares

The Tall Nerd:

>implying that people care that you place that much value you in the game

>implying that some guy on the internet should dictate who values what in the game

>implying that people will give a damn

and i believe i have won

See what I mean? Right here^

"People just shouldn't care that much about games" Is a terrible argument.

Saying "people don't give a crap" and declaring victory is an amazing display of childishness.

This immaturity is nothing the community needs if its what we are gonna get if easy mode goes in.

getoffmycloud:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.

mjc0961:
Excuse me, but who the hell are you to dictate how other people enjoy their entertainment? Who the hell are ANY of you people to dictate how other people enjoy their entertainment? I'm seeing a lot of snobby, stuck-up comments like the one I quoted all over this thread, and my message to these people... would get me modded, so I won't actually say it, but the polite version is stop it. Other people enjoying a game in a different way than you did doesn't change how much you enjoy the game with your "hardcorez" settings. For fuck's sake, get over yourselves. You all thoroughly disgust me.

Ok I am not saying that I should dictate how people play or that new people shouldn't start gaming cause I am all for that I am saying they are not going to get a good impression of games we all think are awesome if you start ripping out what made us all love the games in the first place like the difficulty in Dark souls. If you start doing that then you are going to put people off gaming.

deathzero021:
Now i agree with optional modes being OK. they don't annoy me because they don't effect my experience. i also don't mind games trying to widen the audience a little.

however i also believe that it's gone WAY too far. It's come to the point where sequels of a franchise no longer have ANYTHING in common with the initial titles of the series. It's so bad that gameplay mechanics have become simpler and less enjoyable as well, or changed altogether giving a completely different experience than what the experienced players want.

So why is this a problem? because this isn't opening the doors for everyone to play, this is kicking out the current players and bringing in a larger and easier to market demographic in are place. It's replacing us. This is happening because it's easier to appeal to the casual market and it makes more money. Takes less work, it's a big win for them, and a huge loss for old school gamers.

This is why i barely like most games today. They're too simple, too easy and provide no real challenge or excitement at all. They are not engaging in the way that i enjoy, such as actually having to learn a new system and master it to play the game effectively.

Now it isn't all bad, there are SOME games that provide good options for both demographics, however MOST games don't do this well. It's not as simple as adding Hard mode and Easy mode to a game.

The game has to be completely re-designed for each mode. Simply changing the HP of the enemies or their ATK isn't enough. that doesn't provide more challenge for the hardcore gamers. The simple AI and weak level design are still boring to an experienced player like myself. Want an example? Darksiders on Hard mode is still a very easy game. The patterns, AI and level design does not change at all, it still reflects that "wide demographic" style of Easy mode. So basically the game was not made with experienced gamers in mind and the Hard mode was lazily slapped in the at the last second.

To summarize my over-sized post:
i think it's a great idea to try and appeal to a larger audience BUT it should never come at the cost of losing your fanbase.

to do what you said, a video game would have to take the hard mode out
or make everything easy.

so i think your going need
ALOT of citations

because if you leave a franchise because other people can play it now
you were never a fan to begin with, unless they are literally ruining(changing in a way that you dont enjoy , or a large number of people) it, for example if DmC becomes a franchise, im out like a trout

Well said Jim, well said.

Penguin_Factory:
The thing that bothers me most about "dumbing down" complaints is when people bitch and moan about *optional features* implemented to ease new players into a game. In these cases the real concern isn't preserving the integrity of games but excluding certain people from playing them.

This in particular. "There is the "Option" to do it easy? WAAAAA RUINING MY HARDCORE EXPERIENCE!"

You know I never see Bayonetta mentioned in any of these difficulty discussions, it really does deserve bringing up. Bayonetta on the harder modes is a challenge enthusiasts dream come true. Bayonetta on super easy mode is easy enough for "filthy casuals" like me. The latter doesn't "destroy" or lessen the former.

Well made video Jim, and very good points.

One of the things I find interesting is that gamers mostly do not want to be patronized about their hobby, but tend to alienate those who don't fit into the elitist status of the hardcore. Take this comic on Dorkly for example (http://www.dorkly.com/comic/46874/female-fantasy-iii). It's along the same mentality. "I want someone to indulge and accept my hobby, but you /obviously/ don't know your stuff, so why are you wasting my time?" (Yes, a bit of a gross generalization, but if you strip it to the core concept, they relate). If the casual gamer wants to ease into these more hardcore games, why not give them stepping stools? They could ease up to where they could be on the same level as other gamers, but they aren't going to start there.

Along with that, many of us who frequent gaming sites and play such games have been playing video games since we were young, or more frequently than others. To say that a brand new gamer should "play at our level" is not only off-putting for a new person, but simply a negative thing for the view of gamers themselves. It helps keep the potential for acceptance at a distance.

Now should every single game out there have difficulty settings? No, but if they include the option, or options to help the player out (such as the features Jim pointed out for the NSMB games), then it's fine as they are just that: options. The Easy Mode outcry would have been 100% justifiable if it was the only difficulty that they were patching in, but instead they were giving new, curious players something that they could step into the Dark Souls world and experience it. Also, if that player played on easy and became better, they could amp it up to hard. This could provide the player a great comparison of how they've grown in skill as a video game player, and further encourage them to play harder games.

I've seen where the concern is that, nowadays, Hard and Very Hard are now too easy. A valid concern to have. But maybe it's that system that needs to be tweaked. I know early games had 3 settings (sometimes only 2!):
Easy, Normal, Hard
We then later saw things along the lines of:
Very Easy, Easy, Normal, Hard, Very Hard
This evolution of options allowed for better tweaking of difficulty so the player could choose how hard they wanted the game. We even saw another evolution of this in Kid Icarus: Uprising, where the intensity was on a slider from 0.1 to 9.0. Maybe such an option should be incorporated into more games, where the dead center is exactly what you think it is: not too hard, but not too easy. It can be hard for a developer to really know where the starting point should be, but giving the option to the player to fine-tune the difficulty is the best choice if you're opening it up to a bigger audience.

This could also be a bad thing where a person on easy gains some form of competitive edge in multiplayer than a person on hard. There are ways around it, but developers should be mindful of this should such a situation like this could exist in their game.

These days I like having the option for the fact that I have so many games I want to play that I don't have the time to play them on a harder difficulty (like I used to do). The easier difficulties allow me to experience the content without spending too much time stuck in certain areas. So many games, so little time.

Lastly, more players means more sales, which can mean sequels to your favorite games. Video games are a business, after all.

So in short, we shouldn't have every single game with this option and finding a good balance when having the options will be difficult, but by giving more players the ability to work up to the "elite" level, we gain more people that we can share our passion with. Outside of the few bad seeds we'll get with it, I'm ok with that. :)

Thanks for reading my rant on this!

You make some sense but there is the trend in games that hurt themselves by dumbing down WAY too much case in point ff 13. The first 3 hours you can win all the fights simply by pressing one button and have no exploration or danger of getting lost. Oh trust me, the challenge and exploration is eventually there for those who want it in alot of the later marks that will have you swearing at the screen but you have to slog through SO much handholding before you get to the challenging bits.

sindremaster:

Casual Shinji:
I'm sure this post will bite me in the ass, but the last few episodes of Jimquisition have been nothing but "You gamers are upset about something; How dare you, you whiny little bastards." I'm sorry, but it's starting to get a bit condescending.

To be fair, judging by what gamers get upset by, most of us are whiny little bastards.

And you might've wanted to play Dark Souls first before stating that adding an easy mode wouldn't matter. It's easy to generalize everyone in the "no easy mode" camp as bitchy, hardcore elitists.

I'm pretty sure he has played it.
And everyone in the no easy mode camp are bitchy hardcore elitists. It's optional there is no reason to not want it, other than hating the idea that someone can play through it without being awesome at games. Which is pretty much the definition of bitchy hardcore elitists.

I clearly heard him say in the video that he didn't play it. And way to generalize yourself there, pal.

It's not about not wanting "filthy casuals" to play the game, it's about taking away the uncompromizing nature of the game.

No a easy mode would ruin Dark Soul's, what's the point in trying your hardest when you can just skip it down to easy and roll through it? And it doesn't encourage gamers to become better players by constantly handing them an easy out, for scrubs.

The Tall Nerd:

your implying that other people will care about whatyou think about how dark souls works

and this is why jim is right

no one gives a damn about you playing through the game the way you played, NO ONE
and no one will give a damn when there is an easy mode

no one cares

Oh I do think the developers care about their intended experience. And this is why they didn't add an easy mode to dark souls.

AND THIS IS WHY JIM IS WROOOOOOOOOONG! Do I win the internet argument now, or what? EPIC BURN, SEE YA!

The way I see it, games have gotten easier over time for two main reasons:

1) You've gotten better at them. Having played almost every Zelda game, being able to read the environments and enemy patterns has become virtually second nature to me. But hand the controller to somebody who hasn't played them and they'll have a tricky time. It's like Usain Bolt complaining that the race he was in was too easy; well of course it was because he's the best at running.

2) Games were harder back in the day because it was the only way to keep you playing. The limited memory available on old consoles meant the games couldn't be too massive, so in order to pad out the gameplay the games were made nigh on impossible to beat. Now we have infinitely more space to work with than we did, so games can provide more actual content instead of just beating us to death with their difficulty.

I can relate to this from both sides:

My favourite game series is the Jak and Daxter series. There is a mission in Jak 2 where you have to run a constant gauntlet of enemies on narrow walkways with insta-death if you fell off. No healthkits no checkpoints, hundreds of troops and dozens of gunships that can shoot you from miles away. It took me ages to get past that bit and it drove me nuts, though once I got there I *may* have done a little victory dance. If a games too easy people never get that feeling.

However if a games too hard before you get invested (for example the above mission was roughly half way through) you'll just rage-quit and return the game. Bought a jrpg (forget the name) and the very first fucking enemy after leaving the starting city had me beat, I could not beat this mission no matter what I tried, I was dead inside a turn. Gave up and returned it (was a preowned copy so didn't lose much money)

I will disagree Jim, I don't think just because you payed for something there should be an easy-mode. I have two examples. In the past lets say star fox 64, there are two difficulties: Normal and Expert. I have never seen anyone ever complain about how star fox 64 or old n64 console games needed an easy mode. Now i know both difficulties are different from dark souls and star fox 64, but are they? Both are about recognizing patterns and understanding how to get from point A to point B(safely) and beating a boss(who may or may not kill you multiple times and you have to go back to the checkpoint).
In other words the same exact concept.

Now you made a point about literature(exploding words) or movies(pausing till a quiz is finished). Now here is my counter argument to this. Now if i bought a book written by Steven Hawkings or from someone who is difficult to understand, can i beg the author to write it in an easier way for me to read? The answer is no and never. Just because someone purchases something does not entitle someone to easy-mode. Consumers need to be educated on what they are buying. They are entitled to the product and it's content, but if they didn't know what they were buying in the first place then they deserve to feel bad.

Taking the difficulty out of dark souls would cause the game to lose it's appeal. The game wasn't catered to casuals or easy-moders. Let the hardcore crowd have their game.

Wow.. you went there, and not only made "hardcore" gamers complaining seem silly, you made opposition to gay marriage seem just as trivial... Nice.

BreakfastMan:

erttheking:

jehk:

Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?

I think it's safe to say that the point of a game with the tagline "prepare to die" is to be hard. Just my two cents.

So, people can't enjoy the game for reasons other than it's difficulty?

OT:


I agree with jim, and have argued as such on these forums before. About all I have to say about that...

I'm just saying that it's tearing out a key component of the game.

It isn't "easy modes" that should be getting people up-in-arms. It's what they've done in NSMBU that should be getting this attention.

If they want to give you the option to make the game insultingly easy, that's one thing. But letting the game play itself while you watch completely defeats the purpose. Someone who partakes of that option isn't allowing them access to content they might otherwise have been denied, they are simply denying themselves content to give themselves the illusion of progress. It's the completely wrong way to go about it, and this is a blatant example of what happens when you dumb down content to make it "accessible." It'd be like watching a scary movie, and having a warning appear in the corner before every scare, or a mystery novel telling you to skip to the end.

This is the real threat, because it doesn't make games accessible, it destroys what makes them games in the first place.

skywolfblue:
snip

sindremaster:
snip

mjc0961:
snip

Lunar Templar:
snip

MisterShine:
snip

theultimateend:
snip

orangeapples:
snip

Mortamus:
snip

OMG! I am literally about to rip out my hair, the ignorance in this thread is just amazing. Dark Souls isn't hard because the enemies have too high health or do too much damage, it's not because you do too little damage nor is it difficult because of too low health.

It's difficult because of LEVEL FUCKING DESIGN. In Dark Souls the levels are crafted to be difficult, but possible, in easy mode they would have to change this to be, not difficult and possible. In Dark Souls there are parts where even with more health and damage, it would still be brutually difficult because it has careful placing of enemies spots, traps, and overall just where things are placed.

They would have to redesign all enemies and levels to be easy enough for a casual player to do it. Trying to then apply that to the normal mode it would be way to easy. What allows the quality of the levels to be as good as they're is that they don't have to worry about designing it for multiple difficulties. Games with multiple difficulties usually don't have levels that are built for any specific difficulty but built for ALL difficulties.

That's what makes Dark Soul's unique, it's built from the ground up to be hard, so it's all possible, and difficult at the same time. Enemies don't have a lot of health (some do, but mostly optional enemies), but are placed in the right spots to make it difficult.

The Souls series rewards CAREFUL PLAY and not Reckless play. Apparently people don't understand this and think it's all about Health and Damage when it's not. Bosses usually don't even have that much health, but they all have staredgy's on how to easily beat them.

So yes, Easy Mode would dumb it down by making the levels having to account for both difficulties. Same for bosses and enemies.

This is why fans of the Dark Souls series don't want multiple difficulties because it WOULD suffer.

I have seen the future of reality television and it is hosted by mutant carrot men!

OT: Personally when i play games i usually play them on easy, because i like to play games to hear the story and have some fun interaction along the way, but i must say that my favorite games are the ones which don't give you a choice of difficulty like TF2 or KOTOR. I think the goal of a developers shouldn't be to make a game that only the best can beat or so easy that any lobotomized howler monkey can beat, but a game that has been made so well that the developers know by the time you reach a certain part in the story you're ready for whatever they throw at you, or a game that can scale itself to the level that the player seems to be at. A game that can scale back for a newb or ramp up for the 1337.

erttheking:

BreakfastMan:

erttheking:

I think it's safe to say that the point of a game with the tagline "prepare to die" is to be hard. Just my two cents.

So, people can't enjoy the game for reasons other than it's difficulty?

OT:


I agree with jim, and have argued as such on these forums before. About all I have to say about that...

I'm just saying that it's tearing out a key component of the game.

I honestly don't really consider it as such. The difficulty seems complimentary more than anything, like bad controls in Silent Hill. It serves it's purpose, but I don't think the game would be directionless if it was less hard. But then again, I think of the game much differently than others, it seems...

empirialtank:
I have seen the future of reality television and it is hosted by mutant carrot men!

OT: Personally when i play games i usually play them on easy, because i like to play games to hear the story and have some fun interaction along the way, but i must say that my favorite games are the ones which don't give you a choice of difficulty like TF2 or KOTOR.

KOTOR actually does. If you go into the options menu, you can adjust combat difficulty. By default it is set to medium, but it also has easy and hard modes as well. :P

The Tall Nerd:

Mortrialus:
snip

jehk:

Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?

For Dark Souls specifically; the stated goals the developer had when creating the game.

>implying that people care that you place that much value you in the game

>implying that some guy on the internet should dictate who values what in the game

>implying that people will give a damn

and i believe i have won

I'm pretty sure Hideki Miyazaki and the rest of the team behind Dark Souls aren't "some random guy on the internet."

HM:I personally want my games to be described as satisfying rather than difficult. As a matter of fact, I am aiming at giving players sense of accomplishment in the use of difficulty.

http://metro.co.uk/2012/08/29/dark-souls-interview-hard-master-556118/

Miyazaki: Advice, huh? *laughs* Well, it is a difficult game. We aren't apologizing for that. You're going to die often. But keep at it! The level of accomplishment and the level of satisfaction that you'll get from completing a particularly daunting challenge is going to be that much greater. It's something the PS3 crowd has already been through, so hopefully the 360 players will find similar enjoyment in the challenge. Just don't throw your controller too much! Those things get expensive. *laughs* Don't give up and aim for that satisfaction in your victory!

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/716777/dark-souls-an-interview-with-hidetaka-miyazaki/

We're talking authorial intent here. This isn't just my opinion.

MisterShine:

Rooster Cogburn:

Why does EVERY game need to cater to this audience, or indeed to ANY particular audience?

And why shouldn't it include an easy mode?

If you're not going to read my posts then don't quote me.

Because you don't think anyone could possibly appreciate the game in a different way than you do?

That does not follow logically from anything that I said. It's also a silly argument. You might as well say "I like elephants so Dark Souls should have a trunk".

Yeah, lets not throw around the 'absolutist' title.

Mr. Sterling's attitude on this topic is the very definition of absolutist. "I know everything about how every game should be, I have nothing new to learn, I am not willing to consider an alternative view. There is an incredibly specific mindset and feature set that EVERY game should have, and if you disagree you're a cunt. Meah." You seem to be trying to cram having any opinion about how a particular game should be into the definition of "absolutist" so you can throw it back at me, but it's not working.

MisterShine:
I've watch that video, and in fact I've been a fan of ENB's work since before the game even came to America (he's what got me to buy the game in the first place)... and I have to say, both of you are completely wrong. Yeah, You, Me and ENB (and many other Dark Souls players) derive our enjoyment of the game from its difficulty and harshness. But that doesn't mean other people can't enjoy it in different ways,

People like ponies, let's turn Dark Souls into a pony

and that has no effect on how we play the game.

That is factually incorrect. I'm sure what you mean is it shouldn't effect how we play, and I would probably agree with you in any other case.

When I purchased the Prepare to Die edition several months back, I had already beaten the crap out of the PS3 version last year, but I also purchased a copy for a friend since he had seen me play it. However, try as he might, he just could not kill one of the earlier bosses. He tried and tried, but couldn't do it. He stopped playing for a week but then asked me if I knew any cheats, so I found him a trainer for the game and he played through like that. After a few nights with an invincibility hack he'd beaten the game, and he absolutely loved it. He gushed about the art direction and sound, and all the incredibly design boss fights and locales. It's a great game without the difficulty too. Now, would you and I and ENB (and others..) say he was missing a critical part of the game? Maybe so. But that doesn't matter, he enjoyed the game immensely in a different way.

Good for him, I don't begrudge him that. But he didn't play a game so much as listen to the soundtrack and look at the art book. He doesn't need an easy mode to accomplish that, as you have demonstrated.

Now, the only argument I have ever heard on this issue that holds even a drop of water with me is the "This is what the designers intended". For me, that's the trump card. If the designers feel the only way to experience their work is the one difficulty setting, well, that's their decision and I would stand by that.

I don't understand this viewpoint at all. Surely its merit as a work of art is one million times more important then the developer's intentions for its merit as a work of art?! Maybe I'm taking you too literally, here. But it's merit that counts, and that is what Dark Souls has in spades. It's a work of art with a message and themes and goals. People who see it as a mere product will never understand why those who are passionate about it hold certain opinions. I don't really care about it being "their decision" except to the extent it brings me a greater work of art. I think Dark Souls should not have easy mode because it undermines the game's artistic messages and themes, among other things.

What you're doing is like saying Young Frankenstein should be colorized because people like color, and color is an obvious added value and utility. What you are ignoring is the artistic statement you can make by not having color, and the themes and goals that are supported and reaffirmed by that choice. The very fact of NOT having color is an artistic statement. The very fact of NOT having an easy mode is an artistic statement, in addition to the more practical reasons for excluding it.

Jim Sterling, on the other hand, has been nothing short of AGGRESSIVE in demolishing the concept of games as art and judging them as products with a task to perform only. This is another perfect example. I don't think he realizes he is having that effect, however. He thinks he wants to view games as art but, like Yahtzee, he shrinks when actually given the chance to examine a game as if it were art. He just hasn't thought it completely through. Fill a game full of obnoxious, pretensions bullshit that resembles artsy things on a superficial level and they defend it to the death. Give them the real McCoy and they don't know what they're even looking at.

However, if for Dark Souls 2, they make an "easy" mode they feel is an acceptable addition new players or those who want a different kind of experience, I'm totally fine with that too. I don't think it would ruin my souls experience at all, or anyone else's for that matter. And if that just doesn't make any sense to you... well, I don't know what the hell is going on in your head.

You are persistent in this straw man that I don't want easy mode because of how it effects OTHER people. You have ignored everything I have said about how it effects ME. We cannot have a meaningful discussion about this if you are unwilling to even hear my side. Obviously having another game that is just like all their other games would be wonderful for people who want an easy mode, but in this case I think it is only reasonable to keep the Dark Souls experience intact for the people who enjoy it as it is and can't get the same experience anywhere else.

But I don't think this kind of game can survive in the long run. I will constantly be anticipating its ruin. Anything that is even slightly off the beaten path is hunted down and executed, as you can plainly see happening right here.

How the fuck am I the bad guy in this? Easy mode lovers can play anything in the world. I wish they would play Dark Souls too, but if they can't, won't they at least leave it alone for my enjoyment? How come they get everything and I get nothing? That is not fair.

Dark Souls fans: hated, feared, maligned, misunderstood.

Guys guys guys, can we please move the easy mode discussion away from "yes or no" and onto "how to implement it in ways other than the distinct, modal settings"? The worst thing to do for this subject is to give the impression that having Easy/Normal/Hard settings is the only way to do it. Because it's not.

burningdragoon:
It's not that games shouldn't have an easy mode, it's that "there being an easy mode won't effect your experience/normal mode" is not a guarantee. If easy mode is tacked on as an afterthought, maybe it won't. If it's designed for easy mode and scaled up for harder modes, then it will, because increasing difficulty should be more than just changing a few variables to a higher number.

Exactly.

Look, I don't mind that any game has an easy mode, or a super easy mode,
as long as the mode I choose is a proper developed mode.
So not like Ratchet&Clank Deadlocked, which was the only game of the franchise that had a hard mode that was actually hard. But, unfortunately, it was a badly designed hard mode, which meant that it wasn't so much hard, but rather boring, since the AI was so bad, and you never really had to aim your weapons, so it just meant you had to be slow and go back to get ammo, but it didn't took any more skill, it just took more time.

Also, another example of bad difficulty tweaking (or whatever it's called):
Jak2 was a hell of a good game, it had a nice difficulty, definately not that hard, but not easy either.
But people complained that it was too hard.
So they designed something special for Jak3; the missions would get easier every time you failed one.
The problem with this is they (and everyone else it seems) mistakenly think that everyone likes a game to be the same kind of challenging.
So ideally; pro gamers play a difficult mode, and noobs play easy, and they are both equally good at what they're playing.
But that's not true, some people like a game to be very challenging, others not at all.
(notice I obviously mean something different with challenging than difficult)
A good difficulty for me is when I fail almost each mission at least once, and once in a while (a boss fight or so) I have to try dozens of times before I can complete the mission, and that's how I like it.
But I know others that consider a game to be too difficult one they fail a single mission once.

That's why I find it terrible when games scale the challenge (or the difficulty mode) based on how you're dooing, they assume you want to succeed on the first try. (but I don't, I LIKE TO FAIL FIRST)

Unfortunately for me, the games I play rarely offer a difficulty that I like.
I'm talking about Final Fantasy, Ratchet&Clank, Jak&Daxter, Okami, Kingdom Hearts, ...
take Kingdom Hearts for example, they have an easy, normal and hard mode,
great! unfortunately the hard mode is still a cake walk.

anyway, this has turned into a rant instead of a real comment.
so I'm gonna stop here.

I'm a big fan of this concept when it comes to RPGs because then people seem to equate "challenge" with "clunkiness." Never was this more apparent than with Dragon Age: Origins or Mass Effect 2. Yes, I remember the heady days when DA: O was being called "dumbed down Baldur's Gate" by people who obviously hadn't played Baldur's Gate in a decade...

Stabby Joe:
Wait, an easy mode in Dark Souls sounds rather... dull. Seriously, take away the challenge and the whole point of the game is gone making it boring. I can see the casual user using easy mode and not enjoying the game.

Simply, some games just aren't for everyone. Grim and difficult to cute and easy, different markets. Are we supposed to release a funny version of The Road or a gritty version of Cars so everyone can join in? Not all games are the same, an easy mode in Mario or Donkey Kong seems to make more sense, also mechanically correct than one in Dark Souls.

Anyone is allowed to get involved and enjoy, it has nothing to do with inclusiveness and this argument seems to be used in the majority of industry related "issues" these days.

They do release those. They're called "edited for TV versions." And much like with that, I fail to see how the existence of a completely optional setting hinders your enjoyment in the slightest. It's like complaining that PC games still include 640x480 settings despite you owning a bleeding-edge graphics machine.

I DO like the Easy mode in games... because I have friends who just can't finish the damn games I intro to them (SUX at Skill), with Easy mode... they can actually finish them and we can talk about them( and I can tell how the hard mode is) Take DmC3 as example, all we had to do is show our Super Dante around to prove that we finished "Dante must Die" mode, and we have the privilege to play using UNLIMITED POWER!~ it's a good balance, where all can finish the game, but there are extra contend (that one CAN LIVE WITH OUT) for the completionists, to OP the already mastered game!~ games SHOULD have that options good EP man~

Korten12:

skywolfblue:
snip

sindremaster:
snip

mjc0961:
snip

Lunar Templar:
snip

MisterShine:
snip

theultimateend:
snip

orangeapples:
snip

Mortamus:
snip

OMG! I am literally about to rip out my hair, the ignorance in this thread is just amazing. Dark Souls isn't hard because the enemies have too high health or do too much damage, it's not because you do too little damage nor is it difficult because of too low health.

It's difficult because of LEVEL FUCKING DESIGN. In Dark Souls the levels are crafted to be difficult, but possible, in easy mode they would have to change this to be, not difficult and possible. In Dark Souls there are parts where even with more health and damage, it would still be brutually difficult because it has careful placing of enemies spots, traps, and overall just where things are placed.

They would have to redesign all enemies and levels to be easy enough for a casual player to do it. Trying to then apply that to the normal mode it would be way to easy. What allows the quality of the levels to be as good as they're is that they don't have to worry about designing it for multiple difficulties. Games with multiple difficulties usually don't have levels that are built for any specific difficulty but built for ALL difficulties.

That's what makes Dark Soul's unique, it's built from the ground up to be hard, so it's all possible, and difficult at the same time. Enemies don't have a lot of health (some do, but mostly optional enemies), but are placed in the right spots to make it difficult.

The Souls series rewards CAREFUL PLAY and not Reckless play. Apparently people don't understand this and think it's all about Health and Damage when it's not. Bosses usually don't even have that much health, but they all have staredgy's on how to easily beat them.

So yes, Easy Mode would dumb it down by making the levels having to account for both difficulties. Same for bosses and enemies.

This is why fans of the Dark Souls series don't want multiple difficulties because it WOULD suffer.

Thanks for beating me to the punch.
Some people seem to mix games that are difficult owing to statistics and games that are hard owing to tactics.
No amount of health will help you beat the bed of chaos.
The game practically begs to be beaten if one looks at the item placement in the boss areas.
To anyone who thinks the game tells you nothing about its mechanics...It does."select" tells you what each stat means.That's what I did when I "prepared to die".
If people played the game the way the developer developed it,no one would ask for an "easy" mode.
They would see that the game is so flexible that nearly every form of difficulty can be made.
HOW DO PEOPLE THINK THE FANS CREATE BUILDS/"RUNS"?

If you wanna play a different way then intended(and be a beginner)....you get the motto.

Dark Souls main selling point was its difficulty. Its tagline was "PREPARE TO DIE" for chrissake. Putting in an Easy mode is the exact opposite of all of the marketing done for the game and undermines the series. I understand where Jim is coming from, and I agree it is silly to complain about, but when the game is marketed as being crotch-kickingly difficult, it becomes a nagging little reminder when oldfag gamers hear about companies pandering to newfag gamers that people want things handed to them, things which beforehand had to be worked toward and earned.

Things which the oldfags worked for and earned, and the newfags just expect to be spoon-fed to them.

Really, it's the fact that beating a Souls game actually meant something. You went through all of the cheap shit, all of the tough battles, all of the respawns and losing all of those Souls and Humanity and came out over Gwyn in the end, only to then have a bunch of people come in and blast right past you on Hand-Holding difficulty. It'd be like if you worked for years to afford a mildly acceptable car while the spoiled rich kid down the street is bitching that his new corvette that Daddy bought him isn't the right color.

So of course they'd be a bit mad. A few with some rage issues. But it's not hard to understand.
"Yeah, so I finally managed to kill Manus, he was-"
"DARK SOULS, BREH? Like totes, I totally beat it in, like, a day, chyah, too easy, I'mma go back to CoD."

Has anyone added an easy mode to Ninja Gaidden yet? Because if I remember right, just Acolyte difficulty was practically every other Hack N' Slash's Hard Mode. Would people like all commands to be mapped to one button that just causes all enemies to spontaneously explode? No, because NG is supposed to be difficult. I haven't played the third one, someone told me that one was easy as hell.

FriedRicer:

Thanks for beating me to the punch.
Some people seem to mix games that are difficult owing to statistics and games that are hard owing to tactics.
No amount of health will help you beat the bed of chaos.
The game practically begs to be beaten if one looks at the item placement in the boss areas.
To anyone who thinks the game tells you nothing about its mechanics...It does."select" tells you what each stat means.That's what I did when I "prepared to die".
If people played the game the way the developer developed it,no one would ask for an "easy" mode.
They would see that the game is so flexible that nearly every form of difficulty can be made.
HOW DO PEOPLE THINK THE FANS CREATE BUILDS/"RUNS"?

If you wanna play a different way then intended(and be a beginner)....you get the motto.

And thank you for also understanding. God, I feel like aside from a few others I was one of the few sane people who actually get why no easy mode is a good thing.

Games are the only forms of entertainment that make you work for the content? Jim, you need to read more.

Adding easy-modes to a game does diminish the entire product because it has a budget. People used the same argument in about the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3. "It doesn't hurt you." It does hurt me, because that money could've been spent elsewhere.

I'm glad you made this, also I must mention I hate it when they make something that was overcomplicated in a game more simple and practicle to improve gameplay in the sequel and people called it dumbing down, it isn't, it is making the game more fun and less of a chore to play through.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 30 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here